Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

A Study of On-board Self-service Fare Collection: Passenger Flow Test of Two Types of On-board Ticket Gate Shuichi Myojo, Hiroshi Matsubara, Yoichi Sugiyama Railway Technical Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract A number of public transportation operators in Japan have adopted on-board fare collection strategy applicable to their trains in low-density areas, trams in cities and busses. In this strategy, train drivers and/or conductors on vehicles examine passengers’ tickets and/or collect them and/or fare on-board. Such a strategy causes station ticket barriers unnecessary, and allowing a more flexibility of station construction. However, it also has a major disadvantage of more time consuming for many passengers upon boarding and alighting from vehicles. At present, transportation operators avoid degrading convenience of passengers by increasing conductors and/or adopting off-board fare collection at their busy stations or stops. Therefore, the larger the number of busy stations is, the smaller operators benefit from on-board fare collection. The on-board self-service fare collection (On-board SSFC) strategy enables operators to avoid increasing boarding time by equipping their vehicles with many doors for boarding and alighting; passengers should validate their tickets on vehicles equipped with On-board SSFC systems. This strategy also has advantages that railway operator not requiring increase conductors, to adopt off-board fare collection, and/or to have ticket barriers in their stations. Adoption of such a strategy needs a certain methods to prevent fare evasion. We assume that the adoption of ticket gates inside doors on vehicles is one of alternatives. However, introducing the ticket gates inside the vehicle doors may create a more lengthy boarding time. We have therefore conducted a passenger flow test consisting of two types of on-board automatic ticket gate on a light rail vehicle. One of them is equipped with bar-shaped barriers to stop fare evaders and another one with a function to warn them by an audio alarm. The test result has revealed in both types of gate making a boarding time per passenger slightly longer, however; also reduce the entire boarding time by improving the door-use efficiency under a certain conditions. 1 Introduction There are four fare collection strategies in public transportation. The first is Barrier fare collection, the second is Conductor-validated, the third is Pay on boarding, and the other is Self-service barrier-free fare collection [1]. In these strategies, Barrier provides the minimal revenue loss by fare evasion, but requires enough space in or around station for barriers. Pay on boarding also has the advantage of little revenue loss as well as that requires no space for stations of stops. This strategy, however, have a disadvantage that boarding time is very long when boarding and alighting passenger number is high because vehicles have only one or two exit(s). The other strategies have a disadvantage of revenue loss risk by fare evasion although they have advantages that require less space than Barrier and that high patronage does not cause long dwell time. Therefore, legal environments avoiding fare evasion are required to adopt those strategies. It is unfortunately hard to say that Japanese laws, ministerial order and fare systems of public transports suit for Self-service barrier-free fare collection. This causes that railways and light rails that may suit for applying the strategy do not adopt it. For example, conductors collect fares in busy trams and station staff at barriers in not so busy stations. We assume that the adoption of ticket gates inside doors on vehicles is one of alternatives that enable on-board self-service fare collection, hereinafter called “On-board SSFC”, in the legal environment ill-suited to Self-service barrier-free fare collection. However, introducing the fare gates inside the vehicles adopting Pay on boarding fare collection strategy may create a more lengthy

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

boarding time. We have therefore conducted a passenger flow test consisting of two types of on-board automatic ticket gate on a light rail vehicle. This paper describes the environment in Japan, two types of on-board gate we have developed, the result of passenger flow test, and the result of trial calculation. 2 The environment in Japan 2.1

The condition of laws, ministerial orders, and fare systems

The laws and ministerial orders applicable to railways and those to light rails are different, however, both permit operators to charge fare surcharge as well as normal fare for fare evasion. The ministerial orders limit the ratio of surcharge to normal fare to less than two, which is less than many other countries. There is the applicable law to railways providing fines of 20,000-yen for fare evasion, and vicious fare evaders who disagree to pay the surcharge will be arrested. However, there are no similar law or order applicable to light rails. It is considered to be very difficult to revise the ministerial orders to raise the ratio because current Japanese legal system does not allow punitive damages exceeding the original amount [2]. In addition to this condition, terms and conditions of the most of public transportation operators in Japan allows passengers to ride past by paying the lack of fares. This condition makes a situation that there are few passengers being charged penalty. 2.2

Fare collection of public transportation in Japan

2.2.1

Railways, monorails, and Automated Guideway Transits

Railways, monorails, and Automated Guideway Transits (AGTs) adopt two types of fare collection strategy, which one is Barrier and the other Pay on boarding. Barrier strategy can be categorised into the following four types. (1) Stations that have ticket gates and that staff members are posted in Ticket gates are settled at ticket barriers and staff members are regularly assigned in this kind of stations. Stations of urban railways, monorails and AGTs are categorised into this type. (2) Stations that have ticket gates without resident staff Ticket gates are settled at ticket barriers but staff members are not always assigned in this kind. This class include not the busiest entrance or exit of large stations in cities and suburban stations. (3) Stations that have no ticket gates with doors and that staff members are posted in Stations that have ticket gates without doors and ones that have no ticket gates are included in this class. Station staff members always work in the both types of stations. This category includes stations in local cities. (4) Stations equipped with fare gates without doors and not assigning any staff members. Ticket gates without doors are settled at ticket barriers but resident staff members are not assigned in this type of stations. Passengers are expected to examine their tickets by themselves using the gates. Many suburban stations of local city areas are included in this type. 2.2.2

Trams and Busses

Tram operators and bus operators in Japan basically adopt Pay-on-boarding fare-collection strategy. There are some exceptions that ground staff members work in collaboration to collect fares, and examine tickets with drivers and conductors on vehicles at busy tram stops in rush hour and that tram operators have stations with ticket barriers. There are two types in this fare collection strategy as described below.

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

(1) Paying at entrance Riders get on vehicles from front doors and pay the fares into fare boxes or touch their smartcards on the top of the boxes before drivers’ face. In case the fare differs according to distance, passenger should tell their destination stops to drivers and pay their fares accordingly. They can leave the vehicles from the exits without inhibition. (2) Paying at exit Passengers are able to board from the entrance without inhibition in case the fares are flat. They should pay the fare into fare boxes or touch their smartcards on the top of the boxes before leaving the vehicles. In case the fare is not flat, passengers must take numbered tickets from issuing equipments or touch their smartcards on the antenna of the card readers before or just after boarding. They should pay the fare into fare boxes or touch their smartcards on the top of the boxes before leaving the vehicles. 3 Proposed fare collection strategy 3.1

The usage of vehicles in proposed strategy

This section describes the way how to board and alight from the vehicles in proposed On-board SSFC strategy with an example. In the example, the vehicle has four doors on the left side and passengers should pay the fare that is not flat. (1) Allocation of equipments Figure 1 shows the allocation of equipments in the vehicle. A numbered ticket issuing machine is allocated inside the nearest door (Door 1 in Fig. 1) to the driver unlike in current vehicles whilst a fare box is settled beside the driver as same as in current. Inside the other doors (Door 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 1); the vehicle is equipped with small footprint ticket gates. All these machines are equipped with smartcard reader. (2) Usage of the fare collection system 

Passengers with smart cards They are required to touch their cards onto the readers on fare gates (inside Door 2, 3, or 4 in Fig. 1) or the reader on the issuing equipment before boarding. When alighting, they are also required to touch their cards onto the fare gates’ reader or the reader on the fare box.



Passengers without smart cards They are required to take numbered tickets from the issuing equipment (inside Door 1 Fig. 1) to the driver before boarding. When alighting, they should put the fare and the numbered tickets into the fare box. Driver Fare Box

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment Fare Gate

Door 1

Door 2

Fare Gate

Door 3

Fare Gate

Door 4

Figure 1: Equipments allocations in the proposed strategy

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

3.2

An on-board ticket machine

In the strategy mentioned above, it is necessary to enforce passengers to examine their smartcards themselves in order to avoid revenue loss by fare evasion. There are two types of enforcement. One is psychological and the other is physical. 3.2.1

Psychological deterrence

Psychological deterrence utilises the psychology that fare evader would avoid drawing attention by their fraud. Fare gates will provide that deterrence by having following functions:  

Warning by an audio and visual alarm when examining invalid a smartcard (see Fig. 2), Warning by an audio and visual alarm when passing without permission (see Fig. 3).

Such a gate that has the functions mentioned above can detect one to pass through. After it permits one to pass, it will stop accepting the next passenger’s smartcard in order not to warn the passenger with permission during passing the gate in case the next passenger’s smartcard is invalid.

NG

NG NG BUZZ！

Figure 2 The case of invalid smartcard 3.2.2

NG BUZZ！

Figure 3 The case of passing without permission

Physical deterrence

Physical deterrence is the door of automatic ticket gate. The length of the gate to be installed on a vehicle must be as short as possible, and thus it differs from most of ticket gates that is widely used in Japan by the following ways.   

3.2.3

The door moves on a vertical plane unlike the flap doors of current gates. The gate closes its door(s) just after a person pass through it. Before a person permitted finishes passing, the smartcard of the next passenger will not be accepted. A prototype fare gate

Figure 4 shows a prototype of on-board ticket gate, and Table 1 shows the specification thereof. The dimensions and the weight in the Table 1 are the values that the gate is unequipped with smartcard reader. The door opening and closing times in the Table 1 are the minimum that have possibility to extend when a passenger enter the footprint of the gate while opening or closing because the gate will slow down the door moving speed.

1255mm

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

900mm 1140mm

350mm

Figure 4 Prototype of on-board ticket gate Table 1 Specification of the prototype of Width 1140 mm Height 1255 mm Length 350 mm Passage width 900 mm Weight 60 kg AC power requirements Idle 60 W or less Max 100 W or less Door opening and closing Close -> Open 0.3 s time Open -> Close 0.3 s Dimensions

The prototype has two operational modes; it has physical deterrence by enabling its doors in the first mode, and has only psychological deterrence by disabling its doors in the other mode. The gate will permit a person to pass after 0.2-second touch of a smartcard on the reader’s face. In operating as physical deterrence, i.e. while enabling its doors, it will show the mark of permission on the LED display and open its doors after giving permission, and will close them after one person finishes passing. In operating as psychological deterrence, i.e. while disabling its doors, it will only show the mark after giving permission. In both operating mode, it will show the mark of error and give an audio warning in case anybody passes without permission. Table 2 shows the marks. Table 2 Marks and audio information/warnings in each case

Event Permission of pass

LED Display

Buzzer/chime Japanese Beep N/A

Invalid Card

Ding Dong

This card is invalid.

Passing without examination of the card

Ding Dong

N/A

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

4 Passenger flow test and result 4.1

Test method

In order to grasp throughput of prototype gate we have manufactured, we have conducted a test. In the test, we set the prototype on a 100% low-floor light rail vehicle as shown in Fig. 5 and made 30 examinees to board and alight from the vehicle through the gate. The parameters of this test are described below:    

Operating mode (physical deterrence or psychological deterrence) On-board number before starting each experiment Number of alighting Number of boarding

Combinational number of these parameters except for operating mode is 40 for each operating mode. The number of alighting and number of boarding are multiples of 6 between 0 and 24, and the former is no more than onFigure 5 Prototype gate on a light rail vehicle board number before starting each experiment, the latter is limited not to exceed on-board number after each experiment. Each experiment started with opening of the vehicle door, and the alighting examinees passed through the gate prior to the boarding examinees. The total number of examinees passed through is 300 in physical deterrence mode test, and 301 in psychological deterrence mode test. 4.2

Test result

The throughput that means the passing time per person has been calculated by counting frame number of the moving image of the test. The frame rate of this image is 29.97. Table 3 shows the throughput gained from the test. Table 3 Throughput of prototype gate Boarding Physical deterrence mode 3.0 s Psychological deterrence mode 2.7 s

Alighting 2.5 s 2.5 s

5 Discussion 5.1

Analysis of the throughput

The throughput in physical deterrence mode was expected to be around 0.6 second longer than that in psychological deterrence mode; however, boarding time per passenger in physical deterrence mode is only 0.3 s longer than that in psychological and alighting time in physical is as same as in psychological. The movie of the test in psychological deterrence mode shows that there were 52 out of 301 examinees that had passed through the gate without permission. The prototype gate will provide visual and audio warnings and stop accepting smartcards for three seconds after detecting a passing without permission. These suspensions result in lengthening the throughput. The throughput without those 52 examinees and

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

the examinees that passed after them is 2.4 seconds in case of boarding and 2.2 seconds in case of alighting. 5.2

Effects on total boarding time of introducing on-board gates

We have calculated changes of total boarding time by introducing on-board ticket gates with doors as well as changes by gates without doors. We have used the result of the survey of trams in two cities in 2000 as shown in Table 4 [3] as the throughput in current system. This result shows the alighting time in the morning is longer than in the evening whilst the boarding time in the morning is as same as in the evening. The reason of this difference is considered that the ratio of passengers paying their fares in cash to all passengers is high in the evening. Table 4 Boarding and alighting time of trams with current fare collection system [3] Boarding Alighting Morning 1.94 s 1.87 s Evening 1.78 s 2.76 s The trial calculation has been made under the following conditions with the combination of boarding number and alighting number; the numbers are multiples of 5 between 0 and 100. The number of combination of boarding and alighting is 441.       

The number of types of passengers is two; with smartcards and without smartcards. The number of alighting passengers at each exit is equal as well as that of boarding at each entrance in case gates are not introduced. A ticket gate is settled inside each door except for the nearest to the driver. Passengers with smartcards enter and exit from the doors that are equipped with gates and passengers paying their fare in cash board and alight from the nearest door to the driver. The number of alighting passengers at each door equipped with a gate is equal as well as that of boarding Boarding passengers with smartcards also enter from the front door five seconds after the all passengers paying in cash have finished boarding. Setting of boarding time and alighting time per passenger in each case is in Table 5.

Passenger with smartcards Passenger paying in cash

Table 5 Setting of time in each case Current fare collection Physical deterrence system Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting 1.8 s 1.8 s 3.0 s 2.5 s 1.8 s 2.8 s 1.8 s 2.8 s

Psychological deterrence Boarding Alighting 2.7 s 2.5 s 1.8 s 2.8 s

The calculation result in case introducing to a vehicle that a conductor collects fare and that in case introducing to a vehicle without conductors are described blow. (1) Introducing to a vehicle that a conductor collects fare Figure 6 shows staff and equipment allocation on a vehicle that is the examination object in this section. The vehicle has four doors on the left side; the front one and rear one are the exit and the other two doors are the entrance. A conductor collects fare at the rear door. There are numbered ticket issuing equipments inside the entrance doors and fare boxes inside the exit doors. Passengers should touch their smartcards on the smartcard reader or take numbered tickets at the entrance when boarding; and should also touch onto the antenna on the fare boxes or put their fare and the numbered tickets into the boxes. Figure 7 shows new allocation of staff and equipments after introducing fare gates.

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

Figure 8 shows changes in total boarding time after introducing gates onto the vehicle. The coloured areas on the graphs in Figure 8 mean that the total boarding time becomes shorter in the combination in these areas; the white areas mean that the time becomes longer in the combination in there. Table 6 shows the number of combinations that total boarding time become longer and shorter. In case the ratio of passengers with smartcards to all passengers is 60%, both gates enabling doors and gates disabling them lengthen the total time in most of combinations. The reason of this situation is the increase of passengers pass through the front door because passengers paying in cash must enter and exit through the door. In case the ratio is 80%, the number of combinations that the total boarding time becomes shorter after introducing gate is higher than in case of 60%. In case the all passenger pay their fare with their smartcards, the number of combinations that total time becomes shorter is lesser than in case of 80%. The reason of this situation is that the total time in current fare collection system becomes very shorter because there are no passengers who consume time to pay in cash. Focusing the ratio of 80%, Table 6 shows the number of combinations that the total time becomes longer is higher than that the total time becomes shorter both introducing gates with doors and without doors. If the boarding time would be 2.5 seconds, the number of combination of time lengthened would be 214, and the number of time shortened 224, which is very close to 214. Driver

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment

Fare Box

Exit

All Passengers

Conductor

Fare Box

Entrance

Entrance

All Passengers

Driver

Fare Box

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment Fare Gate

Fare Gate

Fare Gate

Exit

All Passengers

Figure 6 Allocation of staff and equipments on the calculation target

Passengers with Cash

Passengers with Smartcards

Figure 7 Allocation after introducing fare gates

Table 6 Number of combinations that total number changes after introducing gates The case of fare gates with doors The case of fare gates without doors The ratio Become longer Become shorter Become longer Become shorter 60% 396 44 396 44 80% 262 173 235 199 100% 327 110 295 144

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

The case of fare gates with doors

The case of fare gates without doors

5 0-10 0

5 0-10 0

0 -50

0 -50

-5 0-0

-5 0-0

50 0 -50 -100

0 -50 -100

5 0-10 0

5 0-10 0

0 -50

0 -50

-5 0-0

-5 0-0 -1 00--5 0

100 50 0 -50 -100

Difference of Total Time

-1 00--5 0

100 50 0 -50 -100

5 0-10 0

5 0-10 0

0 -50

0 -50

-5 0-0

-5 0-0

-1 00--5 0

-1 00--5 0

100 50 0 -50 -100

Difference of Total Time

100%

50

Figure 8 Time change of boarding and leaving by introducing on-board gates

100 50 0 -50 -100

Difference of Total Time

80%

100

Difference of Total Time

-1 00--5 0

100

Difference of Total Time

-1 00--5 0

Difference of Total Time

The ratio 60%

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

(2) Introducing to a vehicle that runs without conductors Figure 9 shows staff and equipment allocation on a vehicle that is the examination object in this section. The vehicle has four doors on the left side; the front one is the exit, one of the middle door is the entrance, and the other two doors are not used. There is a numbered ticket issuing equipment inside the entrance door and fare box inside the exit door. Passengers should touch their smartcards on the smartcard reader or take numbered tickets at the entrance when boarding; and should also touch onto the antenna on the fare box or put their fare and the numbered tickets into the box. Figure 10 shows new allocation of staff and equipments after introducing fare gates. Two gates are settled on the vehicle in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows changes in total boarding time after introducing gates onto the vehicle. Table 7 shows the number of combinations that total boarding time become longer and shorter. In cases of 60%, 80% and 100%, both gates with doors and gates without doors shorten the total time in most of combinations. Driver

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment

Fare Box

Fare Box

Exit

All Passengers

Driver

Numbered Ticket Issuing Equipment Fare Gate

Fare Gate

Entrance

All Passengers

Figure 9 Allocation of staff and equipments on the calculation target

Passengers with Cash

Passengers with Smartcards

Figure 10 Allocation after introducing fare gates

Table 7 Number of combinations that total number changes after introducing gates The ratio The case of fare gates with doors The case of fare gates without doors Become longer Become shorter Become longer Become shorter 60% 0 439 0 440 80% 2 438 1 439 100% 42 393 9 431

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

The case of fare gates with doors

The case of fare gates without doors

0-50

0-5 0

-50-0

-50 -0

-100 --50

-100 --50

-50 -100 -150

-150

0-5 0

-50-0

-50 -0

-100 --50

-100 --50

-150 --100

-150 --100

0 -50 -100 -150

Difference of Total Time

0-50

50

100%

-50 -100

50 0 -50 -100 -150

0-50

0-5 0

-50-0

-50 -0

-100 --50

-100 --50

-150 --100

-150 --100

50 0 -50 -100 -150

Difference of Total Time

80%

0

Figure 11 Time change of boarding and leaving by introducing on-board gates

50 0 -50 -100 -150

Difference of Total Time

0

50

Difference of Total Time

-150 --100

50

Difference of Total Time

-150 --100

Difference of Total Time

The ratio 60%

Challenge D: A world of services for passengers

6 Conclusions On-board automatic ticket gates would not change the total boarding time to a large extent if they would be introduced to vehicles in which conductors collect fare and would enable vehicles to run without conductors. They also would shorten the total boarding time if they would be introduced to vehicles that run without conductors. Our test results have shown the possibility of adoption of On-board SSFC in Japan where the operating and legal environment disadvantages adoption of self-service barrier-free fare collection. However, following factors should be improved before introducing on-board gates. 

The positional relationship of vehicle door, gate and smartcard reader in order to enable passengers to board smoothly



The method to inform passengers certainly whether permission is given or not

Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to Hiroshima Electric Railway Co., Ltd. for supporting the test by allowing use of their vehicle and shed. References: [1] Transport Research Board, “TCRP Report 80: A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection”, National Academy Press, 2002 [2] Nishikawa T., “Self-service Barrier-Free Fare Collection System and Extra Fare System”, Transport Policy Studies, Vol.10, No.2, 2007 (in Japanese) [3] Yamamoto M., Aoki T., Ooto H., Kawai K., Usuda K., Sato T., “Investigation on conditions of passenger flow in a tram platform”, Summaries of technical papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001 (in Japanese)